Suffering Extreme Anxiety Because of LHC in CERN - Please Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, K85, how did you find this thread in the Cess Pool where someone else dumped it? I don't usually post responses, but apparently you've stalked me from PhysOrg and so I'll post one final response. By the way, are you rpenner there? Here's why I'm not posting there, as copied from physorg-330 above:

"QUOTE (Walter L. Wagner @ Sep 17 2007, 03:21 AM)
And, if you have posters in this forum who claim to be Jesus that you argue with, why am I even bothering posting here?"

and rpenner's response:

"Well you missed the small point where I said you cannot argue with such logic, but you got my larger point where this forum is unprofitable to post on. So is sciforums. You want physicsforums.com but they won't even allow you to post your ideas until you have a consistent physical model."

If you actually have a topic you wish to discuss, start a thread [physics, or astronomy] that is of interest - get some others to post - and then maybe I'll respond.
 
I'm absolutely not rpenner, and if I were, why would I pretend to be a 22 year old guy with anxiety issues about the upcoming LHC experiments? Are you paranoid?

I haven't stalked you at all, I've only used Google to search for debates about the concerns about LHC dangers, and you've been active in most of the forum threads I've found about it (among other people as well, ubavontuba and AlphaNumeric are some I can recall). Of course I think finding you as well is natural, considering you run LHCdefense.org.

Anyway, if Googling "Walter L. Wagner" out of curiousity of who's the guy behind a seemingly important site like LHCdefense.org certifies as stalking ... well, I guess I am some kind of stalker then.

I've only been searching for answers, discussions and opinions about this subject of which I've experienced much anxiety, and threads like these on various forums really are not very hard to find if you're a bit familiar with searching the net for information.

(edited for spelling and so on, english is not my first language)
 
k85, I have gambled by doing a lot of reading on this subject. The result could have been good or bad depending on which arguments I chose to agree with.

I have concluded that there is no reason to fear LHC. I don't want to go into scientific details, but the general nature of the situation is that, "this would have to go wrong, then this would have to be completely wrong, THEN that would have to do something crazy, and so forth and so forth." It's like doing the tightrope with 10 safety nets below you. Yeah you could get hurt, but I wouldn't worry.

From what I have gathered, is that Walter Wagner's argument is that LHC should not proceed because the dangers are unknown. Not because there may be a "clear and present" danger. He simply believes (from what I can tell), that because we don't know 100%, shouldn't go at all, just to be safe. I also believe that Walter Wagner, if I'm not mistaken, has been speaking of these sort of dangers since the mid 1980s, but since then we have amped up collider energies thousands of times over and nothing bad has come of it.

As for Paul Dixon. Well read his thread. I don't think anyone takes him seriously. His arguments have been refuted over and over and he seems to know about as much as physics as I do (which is not a lot :p ). He's a psychologist, not a physicist. I certainly would not worry about him.

If something bad was going to happen with LHC, it would have already happened with earlier collider projects. I keep thinking "what if I had read about the concerns with RHIC back in 1999 and was worried this much? Well it's 9 years later and nothing went wrong. Nothing went wrong with Tevatron when they upgraded it around I think 2001 or 2002, even though people said it was dangerous. Here we are, in 2008.

Right now, there are many people who know nothing about this and thus have no worry. Maybe one day they'll read about "LHC Upgrade Dangers!" years from now when they upgrade that thing and people start the cycle of false worry all over again.

All we can do is be "Standard Model" cheerleaders and hope it's all right. So far so good. Things like W and Z bosons in the Standard Model have been predicted (and verify in the collider projects) with great accuracy.

Rah rah, go Standard Model go!!!!
 
Ah! It seems we have reached the same conclusions. Good to hear you're not worrying about it anymore either.

I read through some of Paul's posts more thoroughly the other day and got the same impression. Weird behaviour for a psychologist, but oh well.

Here's to a less worrisome year :cheers:
 
New reasons to stop LHC

Is there a possibility that LHC can create black-hole material? The answer is definitely yes. There are a number of papers that have printed on this subject. The first papers came out about ten years ago. There are even preexisting organizations fighting for a postponement of this project so that new concerns can be addressed, as well as the ones that have already defined, can be addressed: risk-evaluation-forum.org, LHCdefence.org, and LifeBoat. [I notice that Walter Wagner is listed as a frequent commenter, if he is the same as LHCdefence point-source then let me presonally say, "hello and good work" in the past.] Papers that support this conclusion are listed on the first two sites…and there was also an article written in Nature, CERN to spew black holes, October 2, 2001.

If LHC is “successful” in generating man’s first synthetic black-hole material, is there a plan to reverse any black-hole material formed? No. The current hope by proponents of LHC is that nothing will happen that is dangerous. Is this caviler wishful thinking or equation-based prudence? Depends on who you ask—do CERN scientists have a vested interest in having the public lulled into a false sense of safety what hidden agendas to the persons asking important safety concerns have? CERN wishes to protect its $6,800,000,000 European tax-dollar investment, those asking the questions only wish to protect their families, friends, and environment.

Is there a model that suggests that LHC black-hole creations will not safely disappear? Yes, there is a new model that is being advanced that suggests that the basis of the safety assurance arguments is flawed. Debate is fierce of the Scientific American blog being used to advance discussion {just go to sciam.com then go to community, the search for my name "Hasanuddin"} All are welcome, though it is advised to read the model before entering in discussion.

LHC is slated to start up this May. That is only a few more days to take action…assuming they are successful on their first try. Chances are they will not be “successful” on the first try. But as they perfect their machine’s calibrations and increase the injection of bundle size, chances increase. There is still hope that public concern could derail the project and allow for all possible safety risks fully explored.
 
Hasanuddin said:
Is there a possibility that LHC can create black-hole material? The answer is definitely yes. There are a number of papers that have printed on this subject. The first papers came out about ten years ago.
Click to expand...

Could you provide me with links or references to some of them?
 
(A little off topic thought that I wonder if anyone else has had .. How come I've never seen anyone other than various LHC alarmists almost consistently using brackets, where they should have used parentheses, like everyone else?)
 
Links to prior articles warning of LHC danger

Unfortunately I am new member, so I cannot provied direct links yet, but

From the risk-evaluation-forum site, the following supporting sources (which include published and tangible sources, which are therefore impervious to cyber-deletion) were sited:
References:
1.. Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group. CERN 2003-001. February 28, 2003.
2.. E-mail exchange between Greg Landsberg and James Blodgett, March 2003, risk-evaluation-forum.org. (No longer posted. Request a copy. Risk Evaluation Forum, BOX 2371, Albany, NY 12220 0371 USA.)
3.. A critical look at risk assessment for global catastrophes, Adrian Kent, CERN-TH 2000-029 DAMTP-2000-105. Revised April 2003. hep-ph/0009204. Available at: arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009204
4.. High energy colliders as black hole factories: the end of short distance physics, Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas. Phys Rev D65 (2002) 056010.
5.. CERN to spew black holes, Nature October 2, 2001.
6.. Review of speculative disaster scenarios at RHIC September 28, 1999 W.Busza, R.L. Jaffe, J.Sandweiss and F.Wilczek.
7.. Trous noirs et distorsions du temps, Kip S. Thorne, Flammarion 1997. ISBN 2-08-0811463-X. Original title: Black holes and times warps. 1994 Norton. New York.
8.. Centre de la Terre, Science & Vie N 1042. Gallate 2004.

*Note: None of these resources used by risk-evaluation-forum.org are used to support the Dominium's separate conclusion that mini black-holes will be dangerous. To read the Dominium's separate analysis, go to the Hasanuddin SciAm.com blog and follow the links that are listed either in articles/threads. Or it can be acquired at an online bookstore

Of the ones used by risk-evaluation-forum, I would be most curious about the Nature article (#4.)
 
Greetings Michael.

I'm 23 years old and I found myself in a somewhat similar situation as you (I have panic/anxiety).

Their current cosmic ray argument did not hold water with me. Cosmic rays may have more energy than CERN collisions, but cosmic rays interact with only a few particles, and remain at near light speed. If mini-black holes could be created that way we would not know because they would zip though earth in a flash. Where as the particles at CERN would collide and the 'mini black hole' would be created at relative rest.

Then something occurred to me. What about neutron stars? The reason cosmic rays can zip through our planet and barely interact with anything (thus maintain their speed) is because there is so much empty space in the atoms.

In Neutron stars that is not the case. A neutron star is basically one big atomic nucleus. Cosmic rays would without doubt strike neutron stars as well, only they would not 'punch through', like they would punch through a normal star/planet.

Because of the density of a neutron star it would absorb the full blunt of the cosmic ray force. Thus, if high speed collisions of the LHC were able to produce a black hole THERE SHOULD BE NO NEUTRON STARS, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN NATURALLY CONVERTED INTO BLACK HOLES WHEN STRUCK BY COSMIC RAYS.
 
James R said:
1. Having a heart attack.
Click to expand...
He's 24... Unless he has a congenial defect I think not

4. Being involved in a fatal car accident.
Click to expand...
At his age this should *definitely* be #1. With all the manic drivers out there...

6. Getting hit by lightning.
Click to expand...
The chances of getting struck by lightning when you remain indoors is basically zero, the chances of getting struck by lightning are significantly higher if you stay outdoors during a storm. This reminds me of 'shark attack' statistics. I'd like to know what the chances of getting bit by a shark are based on time spent in the water, not bit victims divided by total population (because that understates things)

7. Dying in a terrorist attack (assuming that you live in the US).
Click to expand...
Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist attack are probably greater if you live in France :p

8. Being hit by an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...
This actually seems way more probable than #8 if you count small dirty bombs...'
 
1433529629_4c1f775559.jpg
 
I wonder...if this black hole is created and we all go kapish* into the void...will the Voyager1 and Voyager2 still carry our existence legacy?
 
I experience alotof the same thoughts as Michael re the LHC

IVORY TOWER _ BOOK OF SOLOMON

SSol7:4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.

It seems to me as if alot of people who sit in front of computers are freaking out about the LHC... i know this from online reading I have done... and frankly, I am one of them. The world is full of ivory towers these days.

ivory tower
noun
(idiom) A sheltered, overly-academic existence or perspective, implying a disconnection or lack of awareness of reality or practical considerations.


LHC is one of them. Internet is another. There's no democracy in science. This thing is totally hierarchical. If there was a vote on LHC I bet the people would say "no".
The timing of such events is 'black hole creation'(at a rate of 1 per second) is beyond human comprehension.
My concept of what will happen if a stable black hole is formed goes something like this (just to freak you out extra, Michael)...
"the black hole drops like a pin head, straight through all the intervening matter as if its not even there. There is no phsyical awarenes on our part, observed or felt(apart from this morbid anxiety which strangely feels like love)."
There is no physical resistance to the "descent" as it absorbs matter within its event horizon without collision. So it goes to the middle of the planet and back out the other side, repeating the process like a yo yo and gathering matter continuously. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a concept such as 'momentum' would apply to a black hole, maybe gravity is the only relevant force now, so the black hole just goes to the middle of the earth & stops... accreting matter at super speed due to the super dense environment... it could take several years... for enough matter to be absorbed before the earth collapses in on itself"... say until 2012... there are already several end of the world doomsdayers who say that's the date. In fact, words like 'it' and other pronouns lose, really lose meaning in the face of an endgame on such a level as what we fear of LHC. We don't even remember this... what's all this got to do with 'me'? Am I supposed to see through the international date conspiracy before this time such that time goes for eternity forever 09 or 10... the count is on... where is the Ivory Tower? is it 'them'(at CERN) or is it 'me'? Where is the ivory tower if not in my own mind and through the spirit of this text. The big question is "If you could see the end of the world coming, would you say something?" - My prediction for the end of the world, 'noone will say anything' LOL. theywe wont even know it has happened, the existence of a black hole would be highly debateable in a world which doesn't exist, and frankly I think that is the point those scientists are making here, on planet earth.
The trick is that there is no demogracratic consensus in science nor ruling spirit soul. Have you found God, to save you? Do you believe in God or what text read off the computer? vs what do 'I' believe? What ivory tower do you occupy? what ivory tower do I occupy? A spiritual awakening. Is the answer Christianity, Love, Buddhism, Science, Internet? We find our own answers in this dream... dream... dream... dream...
 
Sirius said:
Greetings Michael.

I'm 23 years old and I found myself in a somewhat similar situation as you (I have panic/anxiety).

Their current cosmic ray argument did not hold water with me. Cosmic rays may have more energy than CERN collisions, but cosmic rays interact with only a few particles, and remain at near light speed. If mini-black holes could be created that way we would not know because they would zip though earth in a flash. Where as the particles at CERN would collide and the 'mini black hole' would be created at relative rest.

Then something occurred to me. What about neutron stars? The reason cosmic rays can zip through our planet and barely interact with anything (thus maintain their speed) is because there is so much empty space in the atoms.

In Neutron stars that is not the case. A neutron star is basically one big atomic nucleus. Cosmic rays would without doubt strike neutron stars as well, only they would not 'punch through', like they would punch through a normal star/planet.

Because of the density of a neutron star it would absorb the full blunt of the cosmic ray force. Thus, if high speed collisions of the LHC were able to produce a black hole THERE SHOULD BE NO NEUTRON STARS, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN NATURALLY CONVERTED INTO BLACK HOLES WHEN STRUCK BY COSMIC RAYS.
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the neutron stars as also an argument that high energy collisions won't create any kind of permanent black holes or cataclysms, but the cosmic ray argument is really all you need.

They come in from all angles and even collide with each other. Anything they can do with the LHC has already happened countless times, only without the detectors to observe it in detail.

Cheers -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top